In-Vitro Comparison of Microleakage of Two Types of Restorative Glass Ionomer in Class V Cavities in Primary Teeth

Hekmatfar, Somayeh; Jafari, Karim; Alipour, Kazem; Banaei, Shokofeh

doi:10.61186/sjku.28.3.78

[Home ] [Archive]

[ فارسی ]

Scientific Journal of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Articles archive

For Authors

For Reviewers

Subscription

Contact us

Site Facilities

Webmail

Search in website

Receive site information

Journal Citation Index

	All	Since 2020
Citations	10109	5525
h-index	39	26
i10-index	259	134

Central Library of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences

Vice-Chancellery for Research and Technology

Volume 28, Issue 3 (Scientific Journal of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences 2023)

SJKU 2023, 28(3): 78-86

Back to browse issues page

In-Vitro Comparison of Microleakage of Two Types of Restorative Glass Ionomer in Class V Cavities in Primary Teeth

Somayeh Hekmatfar¹

, Karim Jafari²

, Kazem Alipour³

, Shokofeh Banaei⁴

1- Associate professor, Department of pedodontics, dental faculty, Ardabil university of medical science, Ardabil, Iran
2- Assistant professor, Department of prosthodontics, dental faculty, Ardabil University of medical science, Ardabil, Iran
3- Dental student, dental faculty, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran , K.alipour7183@gmail.com
4- Assistant professor, Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran

Abstract: (1679 Views)

Background and Aim: Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are the most common restorative material in pediatric dentistry. GlCs have the ability to chemically bond to enamel and dentine and can release fluoride. In clinical situations, microleakage is a major challenge when using glass ionomer cement. Therefore, this study was designed to compare the microleakage of two types of glass ionomer in primary teeth restorations.
Materials and Methods: This experimental study included 80 maxillary anterior deciduous teeth. Class V cavities measuring 1.5 × 2 × 3 mm were prepared on the teeth. The specimens were randomly divided into two groups as follows: 1) Fuji II LC, 2) Equia Forte. The teeth were subjected to 500 thermocycles between 5 °C and 55°C by immersion in hot and cold water for 25 seconds. The samples were immersed in the fuchsia solution for 24 hours to test dye penetration. Then, the center of the restorations was cut buccolingually and the amount of microleakage was evaluated and scored under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by chi-square test.
Results: Based on the results of this study Fuji II LC GIC showed higher microleakage scores than Equia Forte GIC and a statistically significant difference was observed between the groups. (P <0.05)
Conclusion: Equia Forte GIC may be a useful restorative material in the primary teeth restoration for young children due to the low microleakage score and the relatively quick placement.

Keywords: Microleakage, Glass ionomer, Class V cavity, Primary teeth

Full-Text [PDF 615 kb] (534 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original Research | Subject: Dentistry
Received: 2020/10/7 | Accepted: 2021/11/3 | Published: 2023/07/31

References

1. 1.Ajami B, Abachizadeh H, Shafieyan R, Aminifar S. Evaluation of Microleakage in Pulpotomized Primary Molars Restored with Core max II: An In Vitro Study. J Mashhad Dent School. 2012;36(3):231-8.

2. Toledano M, Osorio R, Ceballos L, Fuentes MV, Fernandes C, Tay FR, et al. Microtensile bond strength of several adhesive systems to different dentin depths. Am J Dent. 2003;16(5):292-8.

3. Sidhu S. Glass‐ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J. 2011;56:23-30. [DOI:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01293.x] [PMID]

4. Prentice LH, Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. The effect of mixing time on the handling and compressive strength of an encapsulated glass-ionomer cement. Dent Mater. 2005;21(8):704-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2004.09.006] [PMID]

5. Asselin M-E, Fortin D, Sitbon Y, Rompre PH. Marginal microleakage of a sealant applied to permanent enamel: evaluation of 3 application protocols. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30(1):29-33.

6. Mali P, Deshpande S, Singh A. Microleakage of restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2006;24(1):15. [DOI:10.4103/0970-4388.22828] [PMID]

7. Panahandeh N, Khalilzadeh S, Hoseini Tabatabaei S, SHarifi Shoshtari S. Efficacy of curing flowable composite lining on microleakage in class II composite restorations: An in vitro study. Res Dent Sci. 2015;12(2):54-8.

8. Alrahlah A. Diametral tensile strength, flexural strength, and surface microhardness of bioactive bulk fill restorative. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19(1):13-9. [DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2205] [PMID]

9. De Caluwé T, Vercruysse C, Ladik I, Convents R, Declercq H, Martens L, et al. Addition of bioactive glass to glass ionomer cements: Effect on the physico-chemical properties and biocompatibility. Dent Mater. 2017;33(4):e186-e203. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2017.01.007] [PMID]

10. Ali AS, EL-Malt MA, Mohamed EA-R. A Comparative Evaluation of EQUIA Forte Microleakage Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer. Al-Azhar Dent J Girl. 2019;6(3):249-54. [DOI:10.21608/adjg.2019.6774.1065]

11. Basso M, Brambilla E, Benites M, Giovannardi M, Ionescu A. Glassionomer cement for permanent dental restorations: a 48-months, multi-centre, prospective clinical trial. Stoma Edu J. 2015;2(1):25-35. [DOI:10.25241/stomaeduj.2015.2(1).art.1]

12. Gurgan S, Kutuk Z, Ergin E, Oztas S, Cakir F. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):134-43. [DOI:10.2341/13-239-C] [PMID]

13. Ebaya MM, Ali AI, Mahmoud SH. Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Microleakage of Three Glass Ionomer-Based Class V Restorations: In Vitro Study. Eur J Dent. 2019;13(4):599-606. [DOI:10.1055/s-0039-3401435] [PMID] []

14. Omidi BR, Naeini FF, Dehghan H, Tamiz P, Savadroodbari MM, Jabbarian R. Microleakage of an Enhanced Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorative Material in Primary Molars. J Dent (Tehran). 2018;15(4):205-13.

15. Chuang S-F, Chang C-H, Yaman P, Chang L-T. Influence of enamel wetness on resin composite restorations using various dentine bonding agents: Part I-effects on marginal quality and enamel microcrack formation. J Dent. 2006;34(5):343-51. [DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2005.07.006] [PMID]

16. Grande RHM, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Singer JdM, Shellard E, Christino Neto P. Adhesive systems used for sealing contaminated surfaces: a microleakage evaluation. Braz Oral Res. 2005;19(1):17-22. [DOI:10.1590/S1806-83242005000100004] [PMID]

17. Seraj B, Paryab M. Comparing the microleakage of Equia Fort Glass ionomer, Amalgam and composite resin in class II restorations of Pulpotomized Primary molars. Iran J Ped Dent. 2018;14(1):11-24. [DOI:10.29252/ijpd.14.1.11]

18. Gopinath VK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between bulk esthetic materials versus resin-modified glass ionomer to restore Class II cavities in primary molars. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2017;35(3):238. [DOI:10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_17_17] [PMID]

19. Amaral I, Gameiro A, Lopes L, Ventura I. In vitro study of microleakage and microhardness of high viscosity glass ionomer cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement. J Dent Oral Hyg. 2017;1:283-9.

20. Sharafeddin F, Feizi N. Evaluation of the effect of adding micro-hydroxyapatite and nano-hydroxyapatite on the microleakage of conventional and resin-modified Glass-ionomer Cl V restorations. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(2):e242. [DOI:10.4317/jced.53216] [PMID] []

21. Bollu IP, Hari A, Thumu J, Velagula LD, Bolla N, Varri S, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between nano-ionomer, giomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities-CLSM study. J Clin Diagn Res: JCDR. 2016;10(5):ZC66. [DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2016/18730.7798] [PMID] []

22. Ferracane JL. Developing a more complete understanding of stresses produced in dental composites during polymerization. Dent Mater. 2005;21(1):36-42. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.004] [PMID]

23. Ebaya MM, Ali AI, Mahmoud SH. Evaluation of marginal adaptation and microleakage of three glass ionomer-based Class V restorations: in vitro study. Eur J Dent. 2019;13(4):599. [DOI:10.1055/s-0039-3401435] [PMID] []

24. Eronat N, Yilmaz E, Kara N, Topaloglu AA. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer: An in vitro study. Eur J Dent. 2014;8(4):450. [DOI:10.4103/1305-7456.143615] [PMID] []

25. Masih S, Koshy G, Joshi J. Comparative evaluation of the microleakage of two modified glass ionomer cements on primary molars. An in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011;29(2):135. [DOI:10.4103/0970-4388.84686] [PMID]

26. Yu H, Li Q, Attin T, Wang Y. Protective effect of resin coating on the microleakage of Class V restorations following treatment with carbamide peroxide in vitro. Oper Dent. 2010;35(6):634-40. [DOI:10.2341/10-039-LR] [PMID]

27. Bonifácio CC, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ. Coating glass-ionomer cements with a nanofilled resin. Acta Odontol Scand. 2012;70(6):471-7. [DOI:10.3109/00016357.2011.639307] [PMID]

28. Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, Phuong LH, Khanh ND. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(3):753-9. [DOI:10.1007/s00784-013-1026-z] [PMID]

29. Türkün LS, Kanik Ö. A Prospective Six-Year Clinical Study Evaluating Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cements with Resin Coating on Posterior Teeth: Quo Vadis? Oper Dent. 2016;41(6):587-98. [DOI:10.2341/15-331-C] [PMID]

30. Akman H, Tosun G. Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass ionomer restorative materials: A 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial in children. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020;23(4):489-97. [DOI:10.4103/njcp.njcp_519_19] [PMID]

31. Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results. J Appl Oral Sci: revista FOB. 2019;27:e20180678. [DOI:10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678] [PMID] []

32. Omidi BR, Naeini FF, Dehghan H, Tamiz P, Savadroodbari MM, Jabbarian R. Microleakage of an enhanced resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material in primary molars. J Dent (Tehran, Iran). 2018;15(4):205.

33. Mitra SB, Lee C-Y, Bui HT, Tantbirojn D, Rusin RP. Long-term adhesion and mechanism of bonding of a paste-liquid resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater. 2009;25(4):459-66. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2008.09.008] [PMID]

34. Siddiqui F, Karkare S. Sealing Ability of Nano-ionomer in Primary Teeth: An ex vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;9(3):209. [DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1365] [PMID] []

35. Perdigão J, Dutra-Corrêa M, Saraceni S, Ciaramicoli M, Kiyan V. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results. Oper Dent. 2012;37(6):591-601. [DOI:10.2341/11-415-C] [PMID]

36. AL-Shimmary AF, Hassan AM. Evaluation of The Microleakage of Polyacid Modified Composite Compared to Hybrid Composite and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary and Permanent Teeth Restoration (An in vitro study). J Baghdad College Dent. 2019;31(2):36-43. [DOI:10.26477/jbcd.v31i2.2622]

37. Ajami B, Abachizadeh H, Shafieyan R, Aminifar S. Evaluation of Microleakage in Pulpotomized Primary Molars Restored with Core max II: An In Vitro Study. J Mashhad Dent School. 2012;36(3):231-8.

38. Toledano M, Osorio R, Ceballos L, Fuentes MV, Fernandes C, Tay FR, et al. Microtensile bond strength of several adhesive systems to different dentin depths. Am J Dent. 2003;16(5):292-8.

39. Sidhu S. Glass‐ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J. 2011;56:23-30. [DOI:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01293.x] [PMID]

40. Prentice LH, Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. The effect of mixing time on the handling and compressive strength of an encapsulated glass-ionomer cement. Dent Mater. 2005;21(8):704-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2004.09.006] [PMID]

41. Asselin M-E, Fortin D, Sitbon Y, Rompre PH. Marginal microleakage of a sealant applied to permanent enamel: evaluation of 3 application protocols. Pediatr Dent. 2008;30(1):29-33.

42. Mali P, Deshpande S, Singh A. Microleakage of restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2006;24(1):15. [DOI:10.4103/0970-4388.22828] [PMID]

43. Panahandeh N, Khalilzadeh S, Hoseini Tabatabaei S, SHarifi Shoshtari S. Efficacy of curing flowable composite lining on microleakage in class II composite restorations: An in vitro study. Res Dent Sci. 2015;12(2):54-8.

44. Alrahlah A. Diametral tensile strength, flexural strength, and surface microhardness of bioactive bulk fill restorative. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19(1):13-9. [DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2205] [PMID]

45. De Caluwé T, Vercruysse C, Ladik I, Convents R, Declercq H, Martens L, et al. Addition of bioactive glass to glass ionomer cements: Effect on the physico-chemical properties and biocompatibility. Dent Mater. 2017;33(4):e186-e203. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2017.01.007] [PMID]

46. Ali AS, EL-Malt MA, Mohamed EA-R. A Comparative Evaluation of EQUIA Forte Microleakage Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer. Al-Azhar Dent J Girl. 2019;6(3):249-54. [DOI:10.21608/adjg.2019.6774.1065]

47. Basso M, Brambilla E, Benites M, Giovannardi M, Ionescu A. Glassionomer cement for permanent dental restorations: a 48-months, multi-centre, prospective clinical trial. Stoma Edu J. 2015;2(1):25-35. [DOI:10.25241/stomaeduj.2015.2(1).art.1]

48. Gurgan S, Kutuk Z, Ergin E, Oztas S, Cakir F. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):134-43. [DOI:10.2341/13-239-C] [PMID]

49. Ebaya MM, Ali AI, Mahmoud SH. Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Microleakage of Three Glass Ionomer-Based Class V Restorations: In Vitro Study. Eur J Dent. 2019;13(4):599-606. [DOI:10.1055/s-0039-3401435] [PMID] []

50. Omidi BR, Naeini FF, Dehghan H, Tamiz P, Savadroodbari MM, Jabbarian R. Microleakage of an Enhanced Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorative Material in Primary Molars. J Dent (Tehran). 2018;15(4):205-13.

51. Chuang S-F, Chang C-H, Yaman P, Chang L-T. Influence of enamel wetness on resin composite restorations using various dentine bonding agents: Part I-effects on marginal quality and enamel microcrack formation. J Dent. 2006;34(5):343-51. [DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2005.07.006] [PMID]

52. Grande RHM, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Singer JdM, Shellard E, Christino Neto P. Adhesive systems used for sealing contaminated surfaces: a microleakage evaluation. Braz Oral Res. 2005;19(1):17-22. [DOI:10.1590/S1806-83242005000100004] [PMID]

53. Seraj B, Paryab M. Comparing the microleakage of Equia Fort Glass ionomer, Amalgam and composite resin in class II restorations of Pulpotomized Primary molars. Iran J Ped Dent. 2018;14(1):11-24. [DOI:10.29252/ijpd.14.1.11]

54. Gopinath VK. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between bulk esthetic materials versus resin-modified glass ionomer to restore Class II cavities in primary molars. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2017;35(3):238. [DOI:10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_17_17] [PMID]

55. Amaral I, Gameiro A, Lopes L, Ventura I. In vitro study of microleakage and microhardness of high viscosity glass ionomer cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement. J Dent Oral Hyg. 2017;1:283-9.

56. Sharafeddin F, Feizi N. Evaluation of the effect of adding micro-hydroxyapatite and nano-hydroxyapatite on the microleakage of conventional and resin-modified Glass-ionomer Cl V restorations. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(2):e242. [DOI:10.4317/jced.53216] [PMID] []

57. Bollu IP, Hari A, Thumu J, Velagula LD, Bolla N, Varri S, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between nano-ionomer, giomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities-CLSM study. J Clin Diagn Res: JCDR. 2016;10(5):ZC66. [DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2016/18730.7798] [PMID] []

58. Ferracane JL. Developing a more complete understanding of stresses produced in dental composites during polymerization. Dent Mater. 2005;21(1):36-42. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.004] [PMID]

59. Ebaya MM, Ali AI, Mahmoud SH. Evaluation of marginal adaptation and microleakage of three glass ionomer-based Class V restorations: in vitro study. Eur J Dent. 2019;13(4):599. [DOI:10.1055/s-0039-3401435] [PMID] []

60. Eronat N, Yilmaz E, Kara N, Topaloglu AA. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer: An in vitro study. Eur J Dent. 2014;8(4):450. [DOI:10.4103/1305-7456.143615] [PMID] []

61. Masih S, Koshy G, Joshi J. Comparative evaluation of the microleakage of two modified glass ionomer cements on primary molars. An in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011;29(2):135. [DOI:10.4103/0970-4388.84686] [PMID]

62. Yu H, Li Q, Attin T, Wang Y. Protective effect of resin coating on the microleakage of Class V restorations following treatment with carbamide peroxide in vitro. Oper Dent. 2010;35(6):634-40. [DOI:10.2341/10-039-LR] [PMID]

63. Bonifácio CC, Werner A, Kleverlaan CJ. Coating glass-ionomer cements with a nanofilled resin. Acta Odontol Scand. 2012;70(6):471-7. [DOI:10.3109/00016357.2011.639307] [PMID]

64. Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, Phuong LH, Khanh ND. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(3):753-9. [DOI:10.1007/s00784-013-1026-z] [PMID]

65. Türkün LS, Kanik Ö. A Prospective Six-Year Clinical Study Evaluating Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cements with Resin Coating on Posterior Teeth: Quo Vadis? Oper Dent. 2016;41(6):587-98. [DOI:10.2341/15-331-C] [PMID]

66. Akman H, Tosun G. Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass ionomer restorative materials: A 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial in children. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020;23(4):489-97. [DOI:10.4103/njcp.njcp_519_19] [PMID]

67. Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results. J Appl Oral Sci: revista FOB. 2019;27:e20180678. [DOI:10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678] [PMID] []

68. Omidi BR, Naeini FF, Dehghan H, Tamiz P, Savadroodbari MM, Jabbarian R. Microleakage of an enhanced resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material in primary molars. J Dent (Tehran, Iran). 2018;15(4):205.

69. Mitra SB, Lee C-Y, Bui HT, Tantbirojn D, Rusin RP. Long-term adhesion and mechanism of bonding of a paste-liquid resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater. 2009;25(4):459-66. [DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2008.09.008] [PMID]

70. Siddiqui F, Karkare S. Sealing Ability of Nano-ionomer in Primary Teeth: An ex vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;9(3):209. [DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1365] [PMID] []

71. Perdigão J, Dutra-Corrêa M, Saraceni S, Ciaramicoli M, Kiyan V. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified glass ionomer materials: 1-year results. Oper Dent. 2012;37(6):591-601. [DOI:10.2341/11-415-C] [PMID]

72. AL-Shimmary AF, Hassan AM. Evaluation of The Microleakage of Polyacid Modified Composite Compared to Hybrid Composite and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary and Permanent Teeth Restoration (An in vitro study). J Baghdad College Dent. 2019;31(2):36-43. [DOI:10.26477/jbcd.v31i2.2622]

Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article

‎ 10.61186/sjku.28.3.78

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Hekmatfar S, Jafari K, Alipour K, Banaei S. In-Vitro Comparison of Microleakage of Two Types of Restorative Glass Ionomer in Class V Cavities in Primary Teeth. SJKU 2023; 28 (3) :78-86
URL: http://sjku.muk.ac.ir/article-1-6362-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Volume 28, Issue 3 (Scientific Journal of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences 2023)

Back to browse issues page

مجله علمی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کردستان Scientific Journal of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.03 seconds with 45 queries by YEKTAWEB 4710